Islam Call To Prayer In America

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Flatfish

The relationship to the "noise" of Christian church bells has been raised here as well.

Do you find that "forcing you to practice" Christianity?

Let me be clear; I am personally appalled and disgusted by most active and passive enforcement of religious BS on the public. I understand what you are saying, and in general agree with you completely. However, in the specific case presented here, these cities have voted, in council, to change the ordinances regarding noise limitations. I'm sure that citizens will have the right to appeal if any are troubled by the new levels.

As long as Adhan isn't being broadcast from the Courthouse or City Hall ... to me, this falls under "religious freedom."

I used to work around the clock quite a bit as a longshoreman and I'm not talking about having the graveyard shift, I'm talking about "around the clock." Sometimes, for weeks on end.

When I get off work and go home to get some sleep, I shouldn't be required to have a sound-proof booth in my home in order to accomplish that.

That being said, Church bells can be irritating as well but everywhere I've ever lived, those bells only rang once or twice a week. They would only last a few minutes and once it was over, you could go back to sleep.

Playing the Muslim call to prayer is more akin to a snooze alarm that just keeps going off 5 times a day, whether you want it or not.

On top of that, the church rang bells, they were not delivering a verbal religious message.

I really don't have anything against religions making a little noise, but if I lived in an area where I had to listen to it 5 times day, I'd consider it an absolute nuisance.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa
Ahh the old.. I can force my relgion onto you chestnut. The call to prayer is a violation of the constitutions seperation of church and state. Even town leaderships have to abide by state laws. Its recognizing one relgion over another by allowing it to be broadcast openly and violates others religious freedom by forcing them to listen to it as well. The ACLU needs to be alerted to this problem immediatly.

So, no more church bells, no more signs outside churches telling me I'm going to hell if I don't come in? No more missionaries going door-to-door?

How, that seems harsh. I for one am for the religious freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution ... for all of us.

Funny i was just about to edit my post to reflect they should stop ringing church bells as well. but your emissing th epoint. its the TOWN LEADERSHIP a POLITICAL PARTY violating the seperation clause.

How are they violating the Separation Clause?

Are they making the Call to Prayer? Is it issuing from Government buildings or faclities?

Did you notice my link to the original matter BACK IN 2004 that noted that no laws had to be changed to allow the Call to Prayer; that these Americans who are Muslims had made the request before the Council TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS?

There is no violation of the Separation Clause here.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: yuppa
Ahh the old.. I can force my relgion onto you chestnut. The call to prayer is a violation of the constitutions seperation of church and state. Even town leaderships have to abide by state laws. Its recognizing one relgion over another by allowing it to be broadcast openly and violates others religious freedom by forcing them to listen to it as well. The ACLU needs to be alerted to this problem immediatly.

So, no more church bells, no more signs outside churches telling me I'm going to hell if I don't come in? No more missionaries going door-to-door?

How, that seems harsh. I for one am for the religious freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution ... for all of us.

Funny i was just about to edit my post to reflect they should stop ringing church bells as well. but your emissing th epoint. its the TOWN LEADERSHIP a POLITICAL PARTY violating the seperation clause.

How are they violating the Separation Clause?

Are they making the Call to Prayer? Is it issuing from Government buildings or faclities?

Did you notice my link to the original matter BACK IN 2004 that noted that no laws had to be changed to allow the Call to Prayer; that these Americans who are Muslims had made the request before the Council TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS?

There is no violation of the Separation Clause here.

The town council SIGNED OFF ON IT RIGHT? therefore they VIOLATED the sepration clause.

a reply to: Flatfish

I hear you, again, there are lots of religious practices that irritate the tee-total stuff out of me.

But.

In these Michigan cities the OP is complaining about ... this issue arises from 2004! No laws were changed to allow for anything. The Calls to Prayer do not exceed the noise ordinances.

I hear you, I understand the frustration, but this is one of those times where regardless of how I personally feel about a matter, our Constitution is clear.

a reply to: yuppa

What do you think the Council "signed off on"?

If you're talking about what happened in Hamtramck in 2004 and a few times after in 2009, etc., the matter was put to a vote by the citizens ...

from The Hamtramck Review 2009

The call to prayer issue first came up in 2004 when city officials were considering an ordinance regulating it. At that time, there was a heated debate over the issue.

Eventually, the city council at the time OK’d the ordinance. But that decision was challenged after Zwolak, who was not a member of council at the time, led a successful petition drive to put the matter up to a ballot vote.

Voters approved the ordinance by a 55 to 45 percent margin.

The issue also attracted national and international attention. Periodically, residents complain about the volume of the call to prayer, mostly from the mosque located on Caniff near Jos. Campau.

The police chief says when folks complain, he asks the mosque in question to turn it down a bit ... problem solved.

This is much ado about an old issue that doesn't concern the OP at all.

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Kapusta

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979
This is developing into a classic 2 dogs fighting over a bone while a 3rd grabs it and runs off. Soon all religious expressions will be banned from public places. The winner will be psychiatry lead by the atheists/feminists/LGBTers. Funny thing they have apps too to remind the follower/patient when to take their drugs, several times a day, just like prayer!

What do you mean soon. It already is happening. Christmas celebrations are being banned all over. No christmas tree, no carols, even saying Merry Xmas is taboo in some places.

Since when are you not allowed to pratice these things inside your house.?

I wasn't referencing that! I was referencing what is done in public. Schools, Cities, Businesses, Govt facilties, and Military are all having to modify the old norms of Christmas with the PC version called Holidays. Have plenty of links to support this!

Ok this issue has nothing to do with Islam.

Perhaps it has more to do with people who choose not to follow religions.

I disagree, the Adhan is the Muslim "call to prayer" correct? Does any other religion use the adhan? No.

Oh boy fella. My question was in reguard to your stament about "modifying" Christian religion.... ?

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: Kapusta
a reply to: sirlancelot

So you have objection to people being called to pray to god?

I have an objection with the Muslim call to prayer in American Cities. Most cities and towns in America have sound ordinances yet in these towns they where changed to allow for the call to prayer.

As Choudary puts it ‘The main purpose behind the multiple loud pronouncements of Adhan in every mosque is to make available to everyone an easily intelligible summary of Islamic belief.
‘It is intended to bring to the mind of every believer and non-believer the substance of Islamic beliefs, or its spiritual ideology. In modern times, loudspeakers have been installed on minarets for this purpose.’

So therein lies my issue. I have no problems with Muslims practicing their faith, but I have a problem with them pushing their message over a loud speaker 5 times a day!

Islam encourages this ^. It is a weighty aspect to the religion. People don't like to listen to that but it is true. Blasting calls to prayer over loudspeakers is invasive and intentionally so. There is for many Americans, a fundamental conflict of ideals that are inherent to our culture, freedom of religion, tolerance and a dedication to multiculturalism, versus an insertion into the culture that historically creeps into an attack upon it (Islam).

Islam does not assimilate into American (or many "Western") values; it is intrinsically in many ways diametrically opposed to that culture (no value judgment on that, it is both good and bad). Even further, religion is a keystone piece to social capital, and as such, a ubiquitous piece to continuity of a culture itself. In the U.S. especially this runs counter to the aforementioned ideals about freedom of religion etc... which worked fine as long as the dominant religion was more or less, save a few caveats, the same; which is to say Christianity. Once you start inserting aggressive religions that are not only inextricably wound up in a broader culture but even DEFINE it, such as Islam, there is a problem. The clash is too great and people within the dominant culture get... confused by the moral dilemma.

Sometimes I am reminded of watching frightened sheep in a pen; they know that there is... something in their midst to be (possibly) afraid of but they aren't quite sure what to make of it and they are confined within their usual safe space, so they mill about and freeze and mill about some more mindlessly. I fully accept that I mill about just as much as the rest because within the confines of the culture what do you do? The way to save the culture is to reject the interference outright, but an aggressive response is also a rejection of part of the values that define the culture. Breaking the defining "safe" fence will kill the threat (which is decidedly un-sheep like, are we sheep or not?), and could leave us even more vulnerable and confused, lacking cohesion. It is a dilemma.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Well...where I live, there is a majority Christian population, and I hear church bells ringing all day long. I don't begrudge their bells or get irate about them and even enjoy them. There is no harm there. Just respect.

.

Where do you live where bells are rung all day
I am a Christian and that would drive me insane

Where do you live, I won't visit your town

As for he Muslim call to prayer, no thanks.

Been reading all those opposed to the Lord's Prayer at the movies, though the Muslims yelling in the street.
Hypocrisy

Georgia. I don't mind them. They're pretty. Most people don't even notice.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

What do you think the Council "signed off on"?

If you're talking about what happened in Hamtramck in 2004 and a few times after in 2009, etc., the matter was put to a vote by the citizens ...

from The Hamtramck Review 2009

The call to prayer issue first came up in 2004 when city officials were considering an ordinance regulating it. At that time, there was a heated debate over the issue.

Eventually, the city council at the time OK’d the ordinance. But that decision was challenged after Zwolak, who was not a member of council at the time, led a successful petition drive to put the matter up to a ballot vote.

Voters approved the ordinance by a 55 to 45 percent margin.

The issue also attracted national and international attention. Periodically, residents complain about the volume of the call to prayer, mostly from the mosque located on Caniff near Jos. Campau.

The police chief says when folks complain, he asks the mosque in question to turn it down a bit ... problem solved.

This is much ado about an old issue that doesn't concern the OP at all.

A great example of "democracy" the bigger party outnumbers the few and tell them like it or lump it. Its a shame this is a republic at least on paper. The majority were never to been able to tell everyone what to do.

YEah it may not be i big issue in truth,but watch that town leadership closely ove rthe next decade. see how much more islamic it becomes. Politicians need to be non denominational and or aetheist. that would make things fairer to all.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Klassified

I know you're speaking to Kapusta ... but ... what hypocrisy are you referring to?

Specifically?

There have been several posts by members recently, that in my opinion, had the topic been about Christianity, they would have ripped into them. But because it was Muslim related, they took the opposite stance. I won't point them out, as it isn't proper and could be un-T&C friendly. If I could even find them. My point being, there is a double standard taking shape. You know me. I dislike the Abrahamic religions equally. So I'm not picking on anyone. It's just an observation. If I'm going to take Christianity to task, I'm not going to pull punches on Islam either.

I can appreciate that Klassified, and I hope you realize that I'm coming from the direction of what our Constitution says.

I can't help that some people dislike Christianity more than Islam or Wicca more than Wahabbism or Jainism more than Judaism. People are who they are.

This issue is not about Muslims in Michigan getting rights that others don't get ... it's just not. No laws had to be changed. If you look at the links I've provided, when citizens have a problem with it, the Muslim citizens turn it down (even though they're not required to by law).

This is about a false, manufactured equivalency between these Muslims being able to practice their faith (the Call to Prayer is an INTEGRAL part of their ritual) without undue government interference, and being upset that schools can't force kids to participate in Living Manger Scenes, et. al.

You know me too. I'm about freedom of religion and freedom from religion for everyone. It requires compromise and balance; and there's none of that evinced in the OP, in my opinion.

a reply to: redhorse

So ... religious freedom for Christians but no one else?

Since, of course, all Americans who are traditional, and have American culture are Christian?

Sorry, the Constitution applies to all equally. See Monroe, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, et. al.

If one religion is allowed this then all religions should be allowed this.

Lets create 5 calls for prayer that is intrusive from all faiths and all have listen to it including Muslim.

I have a feeling if Muslim was exposed to the mirror of their own behavior the maybe one day they would become self aware of what they are giving out to the world.

originally posted by: sirlancelot
Let's put this perspective Look at the map of the area.

Now multiply the Adhan times each Mosque. How many Americans of others faiths are subject to this from 6am to 10pm every day? Do church bells blast that much and when they do there are no words!

Hamtranck Adhan

Big difference between some bells and this!

Most people will have earphones in their ears while they listen to music on their iPhones, it's hard to complain about something you can't hear.

Besides some folk mow their lawns early Saturday mornings when folk are trying to sleep in, why aren't folk up in arms about that ungodly racket?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

What do you think the Council "signed off on"?

If you're talking about what happened in Hamtramck in 2004 and a few times after in 2009, etc., the matter was put to a vote by the citizens ...

from The Hamtramck Review 2009

The call to prayer issue first came up in 2004 when city officials were considering an ordinance regulating it. At that time, there was a heated debate over the issue.

Eventually, the city council at the time OK’d the ordinance. But that decision was challenged after Zwolak, who was not a member of council at the time, led a successful petition drive to put the matter up to a ballot vote.

Voters approved the ordinance by a 55 to 45 percent margin.

The issue also attracted national and international attention. Periodically, residents complain about the volume of the call to prayer, mostly from the mosque located on Caniff near Jos. Campau.

The police chief says when folks complain, he asks the mosque in question to turn it down a bit ... problem solved.

This is much ado about an old issue that doesn't concern the OP at all.

A great example of "democracy" the bigger party outnumbers the few and tell them like it or lump it. Its a shame this is a republic at least on paper. The majority were never to been able to tell everyone what to do.

YEah it may not be i big issue in truth,but watch that town leadership closely ove rthe next decade. see how much more islamic it becomes. Politicians need to be non denominational and or aetheist. that would make things fairer to all.

With all respect, you seem to have wandered away from the topic at hand.

Neither Dearborn or Hamtramck are majority Muslim. May I suggest you read a few of the links provided subsequent to the OP? You may find that the situation's actual facts are different than originally implied.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I find the signs out front more offensive than the bells (if that's still what we're talking about), yet, I've never tried to get these taken down, I mean, sometimes I get stuck in traffic RIGHT BESIDE THE CHURCH SIGNS and have to sit there and have that message staring me in the face for literal MINUTES at a time!

And then, the light changes, and I move on. 3 seconds later, I'm thinking about something else.

Religious freedom; a grand American cultural tradition.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
If one religion is allowed this then all religions should be allowed this.

Lets create 5 calls for prayer that is intrusive from all faiths and all have listen to it including Muslim.

I have a feeling if Muslim was exposed to the mirror of their own behavior the maybe one day they would become self aware of what they are giving out to the world.

I'm fairly certain that American Muslims are fully aware of the hatred and intrusions of other faiths all around them.

Perhaps it is the Christians who are being reminded that Muslims are a bit more faithful to God than they are that is the problem? I can't say for sure.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I find the signs out front more offensive than the bells (if that's still what we're talking about), yet, I've never tried to get these taken down, I mean, sometimes I get stuck in traffic RIGHT BESIDE THE CHURCH SIGNS and have to sit there and have that message staring me in the face for literal MINUTES at a time!

Particularly if they are funny:

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

LOL ... actually, as you point out, some churches actually do have a sense of humor.

One of my favorites is "Sign Broken; Message Inside."

There's a postmodern/deconstructive resonance there that just tickles my fancy.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I find the signs out front more offensive than the bells (if that's still what we're talking about), yet, I've never tried to get these taken down, I mean, sometimes I get stuck in traffic RIGHT BESIDE THE CHURCH SIGNS and have to sit there and have that message staring me in the face for literal MINUTES at a time!

And then, the light changes, and I move on. 3 seconds later, I'm thinking about something else.

Religious freedom; a grand American cultural tradition.

Seriously! You are comparing a sign which you don;t have to look at to the call of prayer which EVERYONE must listen to 5x a day! Bad correlation!